Posts

@JP
Wow. Adversarial noise has never bothered me, but I almost threw up as soon as that image opened for me.

Yeah - very agree that is not simple background. That is WAY not simple background. Effectively the artist laid a bump map across their background making it psychedelic paisley puke.

Patterned background makes more sense, since it’s literally leaping off the screen reaching for me like some sort of Cthulhu-level nightmare monster.

I’m going to see that in my dreams now >_<

If an image is covered by adversarial noise, such as >>3538077, does “simple background” still apply if the background is single solid color under the noise? This isn’t the only time I’ve removed “simple background” from an image covered by adversarial noise, but I’ve started to wonder if I’m too strict. I’ve also added “patterned background” a few times, but I’m not sure if that is correct either.

Should light blue background imply blue background? I think it should.

@LightningBolt
Sounds good ^_^

@Ciaran
I think the tag is fine to leave as is, just punishing people who use it derogatorily as always.

Let’s just fix the tags, with as little drama as possible.

@LightningBolt
If you have an idea what needs to be done, if anything, let me know and I’ll do it. Even if it requires looking at each image to sort it out. Feel free to PM me if you’d like.

That way when some people insist on being jerks about it, they can be a jerk to me.

@TexasUberAlles
Actually assuming that what people call themselves is problematic is wildly more offensive than just a term existing.

That one also needs to get →‘d to autism; nobody still references the eugenics fanboy doctor it’s named after these days unless they’re being an ass about it.

@Background Pony #DD84
If you’re talking about “autism”, well, duh. It has been in the insults-zeitgeist for quite a while. The first page of results look pretty clean to me at the moment, though.

If you mean autism spectrum disorder, it didn’t look like it was being used derogatorily, though that user did apply it to images of OCs which had been described in other posts as autistic - eg. mentioned in the description of >>2565576, thus tagged on >>2545008 and others - so the validity of having that tag on images where it’s not brought up is questionable. (That user also tagged asperger’s syndrome in much the same way.)

@Ciaran
It appears as though the tag has been used in a derogatory manner much too often. Someone will have to clean that up…

@Background Pony #52BA
Looks like autism is the main tag, used for when the image has the word “Autism” in it. And the other tag seems to have been almost entirely created and added to images by one person in 1 day, 3 years ago.

So I’m guessing autism spectrum disorder -> autism is the right thing to do. So I did.

Is there a difference in purpose between the tags autism and autism spectrum disorder?

@Background Pony #52BA
found another one: artist:robertwilliams2006

>>2642300 This too, also add “human shoulders” and “hooves behind back”

@Deserter
Then why not use solo, female, (suggestive OR questionable OR explicit) as I mentioned in first post?

Sorry, for some reason I did not see or get notification.

Oh, thank you. Or, how saying in our motherland: “Благодарствую”.

@Wing Regent
Prior precedent from the not blood tag seems to suggest safe is probably fine? Unless the image is considered too disturbing at first glance.

Should i remove tag “blood” on this art? Pinkie says it is jam. What about a semi-grimdark tag?

I would still add suffixes for consistency.

gum (and bubblegum) implies food? That doesn’t seem right…

@Background Pony #52BA
I eventually decided on thinking of animate object as being used for absolutely any inanimate object functioning as a living being (but not through transformation). Not sure if that’s its intended usage (may be incredibly off, and may be in conflict with other tags), but it’s my current interpretation.

@Algebroot Neogears
Well, animate object doesn’t have a description, so IDK for sure.

I think living object is meant for things like someone being used as a table in straightforward nonmagical ways, and the cases where it’s tagged on transformed characters are incorrect tag usage.

Prior discussion in this thread.

@JP
imo namespaces should be reserved for ‘important’ things.

I like the idea of suffixes the most

@Toastypk
@Background Pony #7C7A
@Toastypk
Why not namespace them properly? tarot:, or perhaps even tarot card:?

Like tarot:the moon, tarot:the empress, tarot:the hierophant and so on. Now there’s zero chance of confusion.

(Yeah, I’m a fan of namespacing everything.)

@Background Pony #7C7A
I’m kind of adding the (tarot) to mosr of them for sure, the more common words, but things like The Hierophant and The Hanged Man are so distinct already I don’t see there being any conflict.